preview about climate change

lancaIV · July 11, 2019, 10:53:46 AM

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0217592

Floor · July 14, 2019, 02:28:22 AM

Thank you LankaTV

lancaIV · December 05, 2021, 08:14:50 PM

https://dlib.scu.ac.ir/bitstream/Hannan/343857/2/9781138027954.pdf
1.1.1 The greenhouse effect
The atmosphere diffuses part of the sun's rays in all directions, but a high proportion

is transmitted towards Earth, which heats up and radiates in turn. The range of a ray's

wavelength depends on the temperature of the emitting body. Thus, the sun, whose

surface temperature is around 5,800 K, emits visible radiation, whereas the Earth,

whose average temperature is 15◦C, emits long-wave radiation (infra-red).
Some gases present in the atmosphere (CO2, water vapour, methane, etc.) are more
transparent to the sun's radiation than to the Earth's infrared radiation, thus producing

the greenhouse effect: the radiation is partly trapped, which provokes heating. The

Earth emits around 390 W/m2 at the surface, whereas the radiation emitted towards
space is 240 W/m2. The difference is called "radiative forcing''. A doubling of the
concentration of CO2, compared to pre-industrial levels, could increase this value by
4 W/m2, which would cause a temperature rise.
The greenhouse effect exists naturally, and without it the average temperature of
the Earth would have been−18◦C instead of about +15◦C for the last 10,000 years
(only +10◦C 20,000 years ago during the ice age). It is its increase that brings problems.
Human activity has resulted into a rise in greenhouse gas emissions: the CO2 given
off by using fossil fuels is responsible for 55% of the increase in greenhouse gases

(during the 1980s), of which 25% CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and 15% methane,

with nitrous oxide (N2O), SF6 and the ozone formed making up the remaining 5%6.
The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere rose from 280 ppm (parts per million)
before the industrial era to 379 in 2005.

" 390 W/m2 " : is this number right ? not 340 W/sqm !?

A doubling of the
concentration of CO2, compared to pre-industrial levels, could increase this value by
4 W/m2, which would cause a temperature rise.
The greenhouse effect exists naturally, and without it the average temperature of
the Earth would have been−18◦C instead of about +15◦C for the last 10,000 years
(only +10◦C 20,000 years ago during the ice age). It is its increase that brings problems.

It is not written 4° Kelvin,it is written 4 W/sqm or 4 W/m2 increase by 278 ppm (1750) to 556 ppm CO2 doubling

Now important in climate research :
climate change feedback,also called Planck feedback
Radiative Forcing

Radiative Balance ( of the Earth)
https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/energy or in W/sqm https://www.wetterdienst.de/maps/topics/s_2019_2_20.png

https://www.pnas.org/content/115/41/10293
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.25.8.1439?journalCode=eaea
The Beer-Lambert law does not apply strictly to the relationship between radiative forcing (RF) of CO₂ and concentration in the atmosphere, i.e., ΔRF = 5.35ln(C/C_o). It is an approximation because water vapour competes unevenly with CO₂ over the IR absorption wavelength range. We propose a quadratic model as an improved approximation. It links concentration to RF thereby allowing RF calculation at any concentration, not just ΔRF. For example, at 378 ppmv of CO₂, the level in 2005, it calculates RF = 8.67 W m⁻², or approximately 2.7% of the total RF of all the greenhouse gases. A second and independent method based on worldwide hourly measurements of atmospheric temperature and relative humidity confirms this percentage. Each method shows that, on average, water vapour contributes approximately 96% of current greenhouse gas warming. Thus, the factors controlling the amount of water vapour in the air also control the earth's temperature.
Partial citation end .

Taking the moon,without atmosphere,as reference : - 18 °C and

Earth average temperature : + 15 °C

33 °K difference

https://www.wetterdienst.de/maps/topics/s_2019_2_20.png
How much the 4 W/sqm by CO2 ppm doubling increase reflects in temperature increase ,°K or °C ?
4 W/sqm /100 W/sqm = 0,04 x moon/Earth difference 33 °K = 1,32 °K increase ,expected 2060 !
But from 1750 temperature base
Since 1850, the average global temperature has risen by 0.7 K and by 1 K in France
according to Météo France. The concentration of CO2, according to IPCC provi-
sions11, will rise by 1.4 to 5.8 K by 2100 based on evolution scenarios.
Taking the 1,32 °K and decrease the above given 0,7 °K rising since 1850 = + 0,62 °K more up to 2100 temperature rising !

one problem : Since 1850, the average global temperature has risen by 0.7 K and by 1 K in France
Between Mid 80´ to 90´ the stationary temperature measurement method changed,international

from mechanical thermometer to digital thermometer ,
up to 1° K difference in measure !

https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Globale_Erw%C3%A4rmung?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=deThe greenhouse gas water vapor (H ₂ O) contributes 36 to 66%, carbon dioxide (CO ₂ ) 9 to 26% and methane 4 to 9% to the natural greenhouse effect. ^[33]
compared

Each method shows that, on average, water vapour contributes approximately 96% of current greenhouse gas warming.

Thus, the factors controlling the amount of water vapour in the air also control the earth's temperature.
The resulting additional radiative forcing is discussed in the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCCin 2011 compared to the reference year 1750 net (i.e. after deducting cooling effects such as aerosols) at 2.3 W / m². Gross, all long-lived greenhouse gases caused radiative forcing of 2.83 W / m². The most important greenhouse gas was CO ₂ with 1.82 W / m², followed by methane with 0.48 W / m². Halogenated hydrocarbons caused a radiative forcing of 0.36 W / m², nitrous oxide 0.17 W / m². Of the short-lived greenhouse gases, ozone , the formation of which is stimulated by nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide or hydrocarbons, has the highest radiative forcing at 0.4 W / m². Aerosols cause negative (i.e. cooling) radiative forcing of −0.9 W / m².^[37]

The IPCC rates the degree of scientific understanding of the effects of greenhouse gases as "high". ^[32]

Ansichtssache !

Sincerely
OCWL

Floor · December 08, 2021, 08:33:12 PM

https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Globale_Erw%C3%A4rmung?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=deThe greenhouse gas water vapor (H 2 O) contributes 36 to 66%, carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) 9 to 26% and methane 4 to 9% to the natural greenhouse effect. [33]
compared

Each method shows that, on average, water vapour contributes approximately 96% of current greenhouse gas warming.

Thus, the factors controlling the amount of water vapour in the air also control the earth's temperature.

Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Are other planets warming ?

https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/is-whole-solar-system-warming/

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Even if there is only a 4% human contribution...

I acknowledge this is a different matter / not climate change, but...

https://nyad.com/data/uploads/2017/04/carbon_monoxide_danger_levels.pdf

1,000 parts per million = Loss of consciousness after 1 hour of exposure.
1,000 / 1,000,000 = 0.001 ... or 0.1%

12,800 parts per million, 12800 /1,000,000= 0.0128 ... or 1.28%

12,800 parts per million = Immediate physiological effects, loss of consciousness
and
danger of death after 1-3 minutes of exposure.
..... ..... ..... .....
Human contribution to green house gases at least 4%.

What other cause is there for global warming ? ... Radical and massive environmental
degredation caused by human activities...

That fact is, the water vapor contained in earth's atmosphere, is one of the main reasons
that the earth is not an ice box.

This has almost nothing to do with the cause of our current global warming !.

lancaIV · December 08, 2021, 08:54:55 PM

That we human influences with our consume the climate numbers ? Yes,we do !

But : a. winter/sommer north-planet and summer/winter south-planet temperatur change from 1750 to 2021

b. day and night temperature change since 1750 to 2021
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island

c. land temperature and sea/oceanic temperature since 1750 to 2021 change
Jet-stream and Gulf-stream currents orientation

This/Such strong differences we do not get by a such a diagram

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/Global_Temperature_And_Forces.svg/800px-Global_Temperature_And_Forces.svg.png

to observe

Sincerely
OCWL
p.s.: I please for "Pardon-me !" I did an incorrect relationship related " time window" !

https://www.wetterdienst.de/maps/topics/s_2019_2_20.png
How much the 4 W/sqm by CO2 ppm doubling increase reflects in temperature increase ,°K or °C ?
4 W/sqm /100 W/sqm = 0,04 x moon/Earth difference 33 °K = 1,32 °K increase ,expected 2060 !
But from 1750 temperature base

Since 1850, the average global temperature has risen by 0.7 K and by 1 K in France
according to Météo France. The concentration of CO2, according to IPCC provi-
sions11, will rise by 1.4 to 5.8 K by 2100 based on evolution scenarios.
Taking the 1,32 °K and decrease the above given 0,7 °K rising since 1850 = + 0,62 °K more up to 2100 temperature rising !

" + 0,62 °K more up to 2100 temperature rising !" clearly correct ,by above given time scheme :

" + 0,62 °K more up to 2060 temperature rising !

This related the the given base :

A doubling of the concentration of CO2,

compared to pre-industrial levels = 1750 with 278 ppm CO2,

could increase this value by 4 W/m2, which would cause a temperature rise.
4 W/sqm increase in this given https://www.wetterdienst.de/maps/topics/s_2019_2_20.png +- 340 W/sqm receiving spectrum
how calculates this "340 W/sqm " number ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant

https://www-leifiphysik-de.translate.goog/astronomie/sonne/grundwissen/solarkonstante-und-strahlungsleistung?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de

The mean value for the solar constant was established in 1982 by the World Meteorological Organization in Geneva S.0= 1367W.m2.

The solar constant includes radiation over the entire electromagnetic spectrum. It is measured by satellite as being 1.361 kilo watts per square meter (kW/m²) at solar minimum (the time in the 11-year solar cycle when the number of sunspots is minimal) and approximately 0.1% greater (roughly 1.362 kW/m²) at solar maximum.^[1]
^{The Earth receives a total amount of radiation determined by its cross section (π·R_E2), but as it rotates this energy is distributed across the entire surface area (4·π·R_E2).}^{Hence the average incoming solar radiation, taking into account the angle at which the rays strike and that at any one moment half the planet does not receive any solar radiation, is one-fourth the solar constant (approximately 340 W/m2).}^{The amount reaching the Earth's surface (as insolation) is further reduced by atmospheric attenuation, which varies. At any given moment, the amount of solar radiation received at a location on the Earth's surface depends on the state of the atmosphere, the location's latitude, and the time of day.}^{1367 W/sqm solar constant / 4 = 341,75 W/sqm}^{https://www-photovoltaik-org.translate.goog/wissen/globalstrahlung?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de}Composition of global radiation Global radiation is made up of two components with different proportions:
direct radiation , i.e. solar radiation that occurs directly on the earth;

diffuse radiation , that is the part of the radiation that arises from scattering of solar radiation and from reflection.
https://www-photovoltaik-org.translate.goog/wissen/diffuse-strahlung?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
Share of diffuse radiation The solar radiation on the earth's atmosphere is 1340 W / m2.
Even with a cloudless sky, this radiation is reduced by adsorption, scattering and reflection to an average of 1000 W / m2.

https://www.energie-experten.org/erneuerbare-energien/photovoltaik/planung/sonnenstunden#c29459

While the direct radiation is only given off by the sun, the diffuse radiation comes from the entire celestial hemisphere with the exception of the solar disk and does not cast any shadows.

The ratio of both types of radiation is about 50:50. Depending on the weather, the result is different radiation levels.

Table 1: Radiation power of solar energy according to weather situation and season Weather situation summer winter

sommer winter annual average
clear to slightly diffuse sky 600 to 1,000 W / m2 300 to 500 W / m2 600 W / m2

light to medium cloudy sky 300 to 600 W / m2 150 to 300 W / m2 338 W / m2

Heavily cloudy to foggy-cloudy sky 100 to 300 W / m2 50 to 150 W / m2 150 W / m2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Average values (all weather conditions) 483 W / m2 225 W / m2 363 W / m2

RELATIVITY !

From 1367 W/sqm to 1000 W/sqm
PEAK

to all weather conditions annual

AVERAGE
363 W/sqm

" .... could increase this value by 4 W/m2 , which would cause a temperature rise. ...."

by doubling the 278 ppm CO2 (1750 ) to 578 ppm CO2 (2060 estimation )

https://wiki-bildungsserver-de.translate.goog/klimawandel/index.php/Klimawirkung_von_Aerosolen?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
However, aerosols are the antagonists of greenhouse gases. They mask part of global warming, according to the IPCC by around -0.9 W / m2 and thus around a third of the radiative forcing of greenhouse gases since 1750.

https://wiki.bildungsserver.de/klimawandel/upload/thumb/Aerosole_temp_zonal.gif/320px-Aerosole_temp_zonal.gif RF or Radiative Forcing
https://wiki-bildungsserver-de.translate.goog/klimawandel/index.php/Strahlungsantrieb?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de

to differ : on land and on sea changes observation (priority !)
https://bfw-ac-at.translate.goog/rz/wlv.lexikon?keywin=4389&_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de The negative radiative forcing is in the order of magnitude of -1.5 W m ^-2 ("direct climate effect of the aerosol").

- 0,9 W / m² or - 1,5 W / m² ?
https://www-klimanavigator-eu.translate.goog/dossier/artikel/012000/index.php?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
According to the 5th report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 2013, the cooling effect due to the increasing, man-made pollution of the atmosphere with aerosols between 1750 and 2011 was around -0.9 W / m2 (IPCC, 2013).

The uncertainty range is relatively large at -1.9 to -0.1 W / m2, because aerosols are very difficult to quantify due to their small size, their diversity, their short lifespan and complex reactions with one another and with other components of the atmosphere. Above all, the influence of aerosols on clouds is still poorly understood. More recent studies are about the same order of magnitude (Bellouin, N., J. Quaas, E. Gryspeerdt et al., 2020).

Aerosols have masked a third of the radiative forcing from anthropogenic greenhouse gases (approx. 3.0 W / m2) since 1750 and reduced climate change from 1.5 ° C to 1.0 ° C by 2018 (Samset, B. H, 2018) . A recent study by Zheng et al. (2020) comes to the conclusion that aerosols have delayed climate change by around 40 years so far (Zheng, Y., Davis, S.J., Persad, G.G. et al., 2020).

New study claim :
https://www.tudelft.nl/en/2021/tu-delft/aerosol-particles-cool-the-climate-less-than-we-thought

Taking as base :
Aerosols have masked a third of the radiative forcing from anthropogenic greenhouse gases (approx. 3.0 W / m2) since 1750 and reduced climate change from 1.5 ° C to 1.0 ° C by 2018 (Samset, B. H, 2018) .
Statement :
from 1750 to 2018 we have had - all climate changing factors completed/excluded aerosols influence -

an average 1,5 °C higher temperatur !
The influence from (all !)anthropogenic greenhouse gases from 1750-2018 : approx. 3.0 W/m²

one problem : Since 1850, the average global temperature has risen by 0.7 K ( and by 1 K in France )
Between Mid 1980´ to 1990´ the stationary temperature measurement method changed,international

from mechanical thermometer to digital thermometer ,

with up to 1° K/1 °C difference in measure !

one measure in 1,25 meters high,others in 2 metres high ! Theoretical/practical world standarts : are different !

by ever observing and differing

°C and W/sqm use

we can now read the IPCC information brevier

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

Counter-/productive climate change action risc :

https://www-deutschlandfunk-de.translate.goog/windparks-als-klimakiller-100.html?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=deAmerican researchers have measured a warming of 0.72 degrees within a decade in an area with over 2000 wind turbines.

Similarly the "urban - heat bulb/heat island - effect " https://community.wmo.int/activity-areas/urban/urban-heat-island The urban heat-island effect can raise temperatures by 5^oC to 10^oC, exacerbating heat waves.
https://www-swr-de.translate.goog/wissen/1000-antworten/umwelt-und-natur/1000-antworten-1730.html?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de0.72 degrees changes clearly also the total estate numeric temperature measurement !

https://www-nnz--online-de.translate.goog/news/news_lang.php?ArtNr=273203&_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
For the science portal "scinexx.de", German scientists had determined that the 1,300 wind turbines installed at sea and 29,000 (as of 2018) on land in Germany had already caused an additional temperature increase of 0.27 degrees Celsius within the last five years.

https://www-eskp-de.translate.goog/energiewende-umwelt/offshore-windkraftanlagen-verwirbeln-wasser-und-luft-9351111/?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
Understand wake vortices in the air better Offshore wind power turbines take energy and momentum ("momentum") from the wind field. In the lee of the turbines, a wake vortex arises with lower wind speed (wind speed deficits of up to 20% were measured) and higher turbulence. At some distance from the wind turbine, the wake vortex gradually dissolves and the conditions adjust to the ambient conditions. This adjustment ("diffusion") takes place faster if the ambient air is also already turbulent. Therefore, wake vortices are less pronounced when the air stratification is unstable and at higher wind speeds.
For the conditions in the German Bight, for example, the horizontal and vertical structure of the atmospheric boundary layer is strongly influenced by the coastline. When the wind blows seaward from the land and warmer layers of air come to lie over the colder sea surface, a stable layer is created offshore. A situation that is often observed in spring and summer. Such stable stratification is a favorable condition for the development of extensive wake vortices. For wake vortices of individual wind farms, lengths of up to 32 km were measured; when the effects of different wind farms were superimposed, the length was up to 72 km or even more than 100 km (Djath et al., 2018; Djath & Stellenfleth, 2019). If, on the other hand, there is an unstable stratification - with cold air, which often comes from the northwest,above a warmer sea surface - the wake vortices are weakened and are shorter. In winter, wake vortices are therefore less pronounced. These regularities not only occur in the course of the year, but can even be observed during the day: In the evening, the stratification (due to the warm air during the day) is often more stable than in the morning and the probability of wake vortices is therefore somewhat higher (Djath & Stellenfleth, 2019) .In the evening, the stratification (due to the warm air during the day) is often more stable than in the morning and the probability of wake vortices is therefore somewhat higher (Djath & Stellenfleth, 2019).In the evening, the stratification (due to the warm air during the day) is often more stable than in the morning and the probability of wake vortices is therefore somewhat higher (Djath & Stellenfleth, 2019).

https://eifelon-de.translate.goog/umland/windsterben-durch-windkraft.html?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de
After the german Eigen-expression "Waldsterben" now in future also to read "Windsterben" ?!

Repeating : For wake vortices of individual wind farms, lengths of up to 32 km were measured; when the effects of different wind farms were superimposed, the length was up to 72 km or even more than 100 km (Djath et al., 2018; Djath & Stellenfleth, 2019).
Lee and/or Luv wake vortice direction ,Yo-Yo-effect (wave)https://www-sueddeutsche-de.translate.goog/wissen/windraeder-energiewende-windkraft-wirbel-1.5209098?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de

the turbines in "windward", i.e. on the windward side, generate wake vortices with complicated turbulence patterns. These take the wind out of the leaves of the wind turbines that are further back (in "lee").
local/regional/national/without borderline drought/rain/storm/tornado/blizzard -incubatoren :
on-/off-shore Wind Parcs !
http://oops.uni-oldenburg.de/1162/1/kaedop11.pdf

preview about climate change

lancaIV

Floor

lancaIV

Floor

lancaIV